cetera a lot weakened than from they were at the beginning of the fight after election day. >> bret: the fiscal cliff legislation it appears has passed. we are waiting for the official tally. but they have well surpassed now the votes needed to pass this piece of legislation. it now goes on to the president to be signed into law. as the vote is tallied we are waiting for the gavel to come down. this ends a back and forth over the last two days new year's eve into new year's day that has been tense on capitol hill to say the least.

taking you now to fox news to the house floor. let's listen in. waiting for the final gavel as the house passes the legislation. to avoid the fiscal cliff. the senate passed the legislation early in the morning. the house has now done the same. votes are in. and it is completely a lopsided vote. however, you can see the republicans are outnumbed in their support by double. >> on this vote yeas 257, nays

167. the motion is adopted. without occasion. >> and with that it's official. that the house has moved this piece of legislation. now we'll got to the president to be signed. joining me now on capitol hill, chief congressional correspond mike emmanuel. mike? >> bret, good evening. and it's been quite a day out here on capitol hill in the wee hours of the morning the senate passed this and the question is what would house republicans do? a lot of leadership felt like they had a bad hand this, is passed by a wide margin, the clock running out on the 112th n congress by noon, on thursday there would be a new congress sworn in. i've got to telling talking to democrats and republicans there is a great dissatisfaction, if you will, if you were to poll them about

job performance, they'd not feel good about it because they feel like all of the major deals that come up are becoming last minute deals, negotiated by two people, and the congressional committees are not picking up the deals they're not challenging or tackling big challenges of our times. whether entight element, the debt, you name it. there is grit dissatisfaction here, because here we are on newor's day after the fiscal cliff deadline passed and many republicans in this case feel like they aid gun to accept this deal or be blamed for allowing the country to go off the fiscal cliff, and perhaps a recession. sits involving two bipartisan gentleman, call this a missed opportunity to do something big but call it a small step forward towards getting a handle on the nation's debt issues. but up here on capitol hill, a lot of people holding their noses and voting in favor of this deal.

realizing they do not want to be blamed for sending the country off the miss cal -- fiscal cliff. >> mike, thank you. the final vote 257 to 167. 85 republicans voting yes. 170 democratic yes votes. we can also report that house majority leader voted no. the vice presidential nominee in 2012 voted aye. speaker boehner also voted i. mike emmanuel mentioned the chairman of the did he have it and debt commission to deal with this did he have it and debt came out with a detailed statement. i'd like to read it here. quote, the deal is a missed opportunity to do something big to reduce our long term fiscal problems but it small step forward in our efforts to reduce the federal deficit

following on the one trillion dollar did he have it? spending. both steps advance efforts to put our fiscal house in order neither done, nor -- one nor combination of the two come close to solving problems and loaders must have the courage to reform our tax code and entitlement program such that we put it on a downward path as a percent of the economy. washington missed this magic moment to do something big, recuse the deficit, reform our tax code and fiscal entitlement programs we've known over a year this fiscal cliff is coming. washington politicians set it up. forcing them selfs to deal with our nation's lng term fiscal problems. after taking the country to the brink of economic disaster, washington still could not forth a consensus. it's now more critical than ever that policy makers return

to negotiations building on the terms of the agreement and spending cuts. these negotiations will need to make the far more difficult reforms bringing spending further under control and making our programs sustainable ask reform our tax code to both promote growth and we take some enare kurmt from statements by the president and leaders of congress they recognize more work needs to be done. in order to reach an agreement it will be necessity for both sides to move beyond their comfort zone and reach a principled agreement on a comprehensive plan, putting debt on a clear downward path relative to the economy. again, allen simpson ander skin bowles, chairs of the deficit and debt commission with a detailed statement after the house passage of the bill that is now on its way to the white house that. is where we find our chief white house correspondent with breaking news. ed? >> who thinks -- what side

thinks they won tonight? the president will be coming out behind me about 11:20 p.m. eastern time to talk about this deal that is now passed through both houses. you will note, a sharp contrast to the fact that speaker boehner did not come out on the floor and speak in favor of it. did not urge colleagues publicly to support it z this is because the white house feels they've got the upper hand here, they think the president took the message of raising taxes on the wealthy to the american people in the election. he won reelection. and that now, he has the political capitol to spend to push this through capitol hill. however, in that campaign, you'll note he talked about this being a balance add prech not just raising taxes on the rich but coming up with cuts this, deal as you're noting in that statement is devoid of large spending cuts. it's only got about a net of $15 brinl in spending cuts so. they're going to have to come

back for more bites of the apple. both president and republicans on capitol hill if, in fact they're willing to follow up on that promise in terms of a balanced approach. this bottom line is in terms of drivers we've been talking about and in that statement, medicare, entitlement programs they're not touched in this deal. it will be interesting to see once the president says about the day as head in terms of the debt ceiling fight, other budge yet battles coming up. if we're going cut into this debt, bret. >> and there a sense that we just had that detailed statement by simpson bowles. there are pointed sentences about the lack of entitlement reform and lack of dealing with the big picture and problems. do you sense the president is going to embrace that message? as you get ready up against the debt ceiling?

>> there is an opportunity tonight but importantly to follow up on day as head. we've heard both sides talking about it so long. lawmakers in both parties saying if only we can be voting now on a big bold plan. and you don't seem to see the plans coming up for votes in the house and senate. there is a chance tonight for the president to talk about his vision for that in the days ahaid. they talked about a big deal. and the latest version had $1.2 trillion in tax increases and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. the score board shows something different, about $620 kbrinl of tax increases and $15 billion in spending cuts. going back to a year and a half ago there is is that down grade. reason why there is a down

grade is a lack of political will in this town of washington. for both parties to step up arks dress the big programs that are growing and address the debt problems some of the problems we've seen a cross europe still sweeping across europe to get serious, and bold about the debt problem here in the united states. as you can see they're saying tonight that this is a small step forward. but clearly not the big bold plan that both sides have been talking about for a long time. >> and i'm live in the white house and we'll head back getting closer for his arrival there. now some reaction, i guess some information from lawmakers in the house. chris? >> so, in talking to bret, lawmakers voting for and against, among the republicans in the house there is no expectations that there will be any spending cuts in

entitlements or anything going forward. there is zero expectations that there will be reforms for entitlements or anything out of this, those voting in favor of this passage, passing this legislation were only interested in getting tax rates extended and getting as many people out of the pool as they could, there is no expectation of any real fiscal reform as it relates to these things. and there is real disappointment and frustration among those who vote in order legislation that l tl will not be fiscal reform in this. >> chris, you had g.o.p. leadership split on this vote. you had speaker bo voting yes. you had paul ryan voting yes. you had eric cantor voting no. is there a split as charles talking about here on the panel developing inside of the republican party that is being

used and possibly taken advantage of by democrats including the white house? >> well, i will say something that is simplest thing to say is that charles is right. and that is a freebie. but it is not right as it relates to or it doesn't apply to not april politicable relating to boehner and cantor this, is a cal clue coup laigs. inside of the caucus that boehner is the, taking it, he says i brought the deal so i'm going to vote for it. ryan who is a pragmatist is saying i am the budget committee chairman. then, they're letting the other guys off the hook. if you look how small number of people is, that is voting in favor, how small the number of republicans voting in favor of this is, they're letting just about everybody off the hook. they're taking it and they're

hoping that as few a number of human beings is watching this, as is possible. and that they will let this pass on into the night. that it will be done. and that is what they hope to do. and that is not a split. it's just the reality of getting this done, and limiting tax increase to as few people as possible. >> yes. but if they don't believe there is going to be on the back end, spending cuts or reforms. there must be some kind of a split in what is a good idea or bad to vote for this. >> they know there won't be those kinds of changes in the future. this is a question of boehner kept talking about it over and over again. 99 people drawning people out of the pool. they know that the sense of

republican caucus is that president is not serious as it relates to reforms, they're gooding to get out of this as best they can. and are going to be sorry. it's going to be too bad. they all knew that these would not be four, five happy months and that the president is sworn into office again, that they're going to have a difficult time in front of them until mid term, expecting gains in mid terms but knew this is not going to be good. what you can see in this legislation with zero cuts in this is admission recognition that it won't -- it is not going get better, soon. >> okay. chris thank you. i want to head up to capitol hill. and our senior producer up there. we can see speaker boehner walk by at any moment. give us color, if you would up there. chad brks this vote and what's happening now. >> this is interesting how subdued they were.

sometimes there is a big roll after plaus. there is some faint applause there but people were mostly struck by is that there is division in voting by leadership. usually the speaker of the house does not vote. it's just a sort of the way it goes. this john boehner only votes three times each year voted yes for this. and eric cantor said earlier he was opposed, in fact voted no. as is kevin mccarthy, the whip. we asked mccarthy just minutes ago how he could sort of whip against a vote that he was against. he said this wasn't something we're whipping for or against. we're trying to assess earlier in the day where people were to see if we can bring plans forward maybe to try to get cuts here. so... divisions in the leadership there also something i might point to. paul ryan, former vice presidential nominee voted yes. i should point out people have

said that marco rubio, republican senator from florida, he voted no, very early this morning in the senate. some people already saying that that is a presidential sweep stake dynamic there between marco rubio and paul ryan. as you look ahead to 2016. >> what about that split between cantor and boehner sf both camps saying they're standing together despite the fact there is a public statement. now, the vote against and for what is being said. >> well, people look at that. again, i think that john boehner and eric cantor have been on the page, same page better in the past few months or year than at one point there. but john boehner looked at this as something he had to do. sometimes, he said maybe a speaker very to get out there to do this. he had remained neutral, you know? in the republican conference there.

i think the other thing to look for here is look at vote breakdown here. so you had 85 democratic yeas. excuse me, 85 republican yeas. and 172 democratic yeas so well over, you know twice as many voting yes here is significant in a body that is controlled by republicans. so again, this is just one of the unique dynamics and a strange vote this, is in the a typical vote like any stretch of the imagination. >> okay. you can hear other property reporters there in a cramped hallway. we'll wait to see if the speaker walks by and if you get a question, we'll head back. thank you. just in is senate minority leader mitch mcconnell's reaction to this vote. he says, quote, now, it's time to get serious about reducing

washington's out of control spending. that is a debate american people want and a debate we'll have next and republicans are ready for. heading back to the white house, we await any moment, the president into the white house preefg room sets the stage for us there. clearly, senate, senator mcconnell is setting up the next battle. and is getting ready he s because it's gg to be all about spending cuts. we've seen tax increases in this deal n addition to cuts. the president said and he said it yesterday that any deficit reduction in the day as head will be about spending cuts as well as tax increases you can see senator mcconnell played a good role, in getting us to this point in saving it from falling apart is now saying there has to be a lot of spending cuts in day as head. another quick point is that everyone going to be wondering since paychecks are depending

on this, how quickly will the president sign a bill into law? there is stuff that they have to enroll the bill as they say that. is sometimes taking hours smrks times a day or so. in this case given the situation, we're expecting the president quickly after making this statement behind me, is going to be getting back aboard fair force one, heading back to hawaii so there is a good chance in the next day or so we may see a piece of legislation boarding a plane going to hawaii so the president can sign it. he may not be able to sign it before he gets to hawaii, bret. >> we're under two minute warning just seeing his aides putting remarks up there on the podium. and is there any indication about the stance, how much he was working with democrats? you know vice president biden running a point there for a long time. >> good to mention that vice president biden because there is some indication that's he might be joining the president for this statement tonight.

we'll see if he does. but he was pivotal in this in working with the senator but the president's aides say that he was working phones in the last day or so. in firming up the final details of this, working directly with those democratic leaders. both nancy pelosi and hairy reid working through details of the sequester, then, of course, vice president biden running point and going up to the hill two days in a row now, last night, as you know a little bit of a rescue mission to make sure some of the senators on the left were not going jump ship. most stayed with the president, then, you saw in the house vice president biden went up there to lobby them that, was a successful effort because in the end it was house democrat who's carried this across the goal line. it was not house republicans. >> okay, wetd, we'll let you sit down. we, speaking of house democrats just got word from

nancy pelosi cite prog gres saying this is a win for the middle class, releasing a statement saying its a blood pressure legislation promoting economic growth asking wealthyest americans to pay their fair share, extending unemt employment insurance for those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, saying quote i'm proud of the unity in-house democratic caucus of our ongoing commitment. let's listen to the president. >> my central premise was to change the tax code that was too skewed towards the wealthy at the expense of working middle class americans. tonight, we have done that. thanks to the votes, democrats and republicans in congress, i will sign a law that raises taxes on the wealthyest 2% of americans while preventing a middle class tax hike that could have sent the economy

back into a reskpegs have a severe impact on family as cross america. i want to thank all leaders of the house and senate. in particular, i want to thank the work that was done by my extraordinary vice president joe biden as well as leader hairy reid, speaker boehner, nancy pelosi and mitch mcconnell. everybody worked hard on this and i appreciate it. joe, thank you for your great work. under this law, more than 98% of americans and 97% of small businesses will not see their income taxes go up. millions of families will coinue to see tax breaks to help raise their kids and is sent them to college. companies will continue to receive tax credits. for research and investments and clean energy jobs they create. two million americans out of work and out there looking pounding pavement every day

goring to continue to receive unemployment benefits as lng as they're actively looking for a job. but... i think we all recognize this law is just one step in a blauder effort to strengthen our economy and broaden opportunity for everybody. the fact is that the deficit is still too high. and we're still investing too little in the things we need for the economy to grow as fast as it should. that is why speaker boehner and i tried to negotiate larger agreement that's would put this country on a path to paying down debt, while also putting americans back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and providing investments in areas like education and job training. unfortunately, there just wasn't enough support or time for that kind of large agreement in lame duck session of congress. that failure come was a cost. as the needs for the process over several weeks made business more uncertain.

and consumers less confident. but, we're continuing to chip away at this problem. step by step. last year, i signed into law $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction. tonight's agreement further reduces deficit by raising $620 billion in revenue from the wealthyest households in america. and there will be more deficit reduction as congress decides what to do about the automatic spending cuts that we have now delayed two months. i want to make this point as i'm demonstrating throughout the past several weeks, i am very open to compromise. i agree with democrats and republicans that the aging population and rising cost of health care makes medicare biggest contributer to our deficit. i believe we've got to find ways to reform that program without hurting seniors who count on it to survive z i believe that there is further unnecessary spending in

government that we can eliminate. but, we can't simply cut our way to prosperity. cutting spending has to go hand in hand with further reforms towards tax codes that wealthyest corporations and individuals can take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren't available to most americans. and we can't keep cutting egg things like basic research, new technology and still expect to succeed in the 21 century economy. so we're going have to continue to move forward in deficit reduction, but we have to do knit a balanced way, making sure we're growing, as we get a handle on spending. now, one last point i want to make, while i will negotiate over many things, i will not have another debate with this congress over whether or not they should pay bills that they've racked up. through the laws they've passed. let me repeat.

we can't not pay bills that we've already incurred. if congress refuses to give the united states government ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the global economy would be catastrophic, far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff. people remember in 2011 last time this course of action was present, our entire recovery was put at risk. consumer confidence plunged to business investment plunged. growth dropped. we can't go down that path again. today's agreement enshrines i think a principle into law that will remain in place as long as i am president, the deficit needs to be reduced in a way that is balanced. everyone pays their fair share, everyone does their part that. is how our economy works best. that is how we grow. the sum total of all budget agreements we've reached so

far prove there's is a path forward. that it is possible. if we focus not on our politic buzz what is right for the country. and the one thing i think hopefully we'll focus is seeing if we can put a package like this together with by little bit less drauma, more brinksmanship, not scare the heck out of folks quite as much. we can come together as democrats and republicans to cut spending and raise revenue in a way reduces our deficit, protects our middle class, provides ladders into the middle class for everybody willing to work hard, we can find a way to afford investments we need to grow and compete. we can settle this debate or at the least not allow it to be so all consuming all the time it stops us from meeting other challenges, creating jobs, boosting incomes. fixing our immigration systems.

protecting our planet are from harmful affects of climate change. boosting domestic energy production. protecting our kids from horrors of gun violence, it's an obligation to ourselves and future generations and i look forward to working with every member of congress to meet this obligation in the new year. i hope everybody now gets at least a day off, i guess or a few days off. so that people can refresh themselves because we're going to have a lot of work to do in 2013. thanks everybody, happy new year. >> president obama got memo to wear the same tie there getting praise for his working with senate republicans vice president biden that,. the president saying leaders did the right thing passing legislation in the house tonight and in the senate

early this morning to avoid the fiscal cliff. used phrases that he has used before saying that the deficit needs to be reduced in a way that is balanced saying he will not have another debate with this congress over paying u.s. bills up against the debt ceiling debate. republicans and mitch mcconnell working very closely with vice president biden signaled that that debate is coming. that very debate that the president said he will not have, again. let's bring in our panel for final thoughts. steve hays, amy stoddard and charles krauthammer. charles? >> i think the president laid down the marker. we have to increase investments which is democratic way of saying spending growth, bridges, are indeed education etc..

so it's clear he wants to increase spending he's willing to give a nod to a cut here and there but wants more spending and more taxes that. is what he said again and again. we have to raise revenues, close loopholes so he's going get a seconds shot at raising taxes. that, i think is his objective. he repeated this idea i'm not going to debate. speaking about raising the debt ceiling. i think that is a bluff he cannot keep. he's going to put the economy in jeopardy. last time we had a debt ceiling issue his pop lrt sank. sank from republicans in the house i'm not sure he wants to carry that risk. >> i think charles is right he's going take another shot at raising taxes. i don't know if he's going to get another shot. he did make it clear spending cuts are on the table but it has to be balanced and he is sounding like he is going to

keep fighting. and that is going to be a battle with republicans. in week skbz months to come. others noted it's the sequester patch, continuing resolution to keep the government running and we'll be at the brink all the time. >> well, look. look in conthem. is never gok a good outcome for republicans we've known that are from election day. here we are. it's not a good outcome for republicans. i think the president is wrong he won't be having the debate over a debt limit as a matter of fact. republicans are think are right to push that. they understand the thrust of the debate for the better part of the year has been on taxes. has been on revenues and a debate and an argument led by the president but everybody knows including reporters and everybody studying this

problems we've faced understand that's spending is the issue. that you can't have 62% of your budget taken bip entitlement spending and solve problems by raising taxes on a small silver of south american americans. the key at this point is to come up with an understandable message and alternative message to what the president is going to be pushing. in both chambers of congress, stick with it. make it a clear argument. >> panel, thank you very much. it's been a busy first day of 2013. i want to bring in for thoughts "wall street journal" senior economics writer steve moore covering fiscal cliff from the beginning when it's just a little, i don't know. mole hill. a cliff. now, what is it? how wall street reacted whachl is your reaction. >> wall street will probably

react that this is finally over. but this is, as you've been saying all night, this ain't over. this is the first stage of the debate. and i think the president is going to have a big tight fight on his hands, the debt ceiling which is the next big fiscal issue what. is interesting is that the president said the other day when the deal was first kind of broched, then just said this again in the statement that he wants a balanced approach going forward. and i can guarantee you this that republicans are in no mood for tax increases this year, i think that is where they're going to lock horns. what this debate has been about is not little issues. this is not small this, is the difference between the two parties where democrats say we want to grow the government ask have higher taxes to pay for it. republicans say we want the private sector to grow and think raising taxes is bad for the economy.

>> and steve, i guess the question is that you heard the simpson bowles detailed reaction. at points, scathing. is this president prepared to deal in this second term on those big issues talked about by his own deficit and debt commission. >> so far, he's not. when i've talked to the republican leaders over last few weeks they've just expressed such utter frustration that there were really no agreements. they won't budth an inch. this is -- they won the first inning of the game here. i think the republicans will be more fighting in the week as head to say this, bre text president obama we stril a trillion dollar receive sit -- deficit what. is your next act? i think that puts president obama on weaker foot goinging

forward in weeks and months ahead. >> steve moore thank you very much. before i go, charles, final word? >> obama announced he's not here to destroy or undo entitlement statement state he's in favor of it and that is where he's going to stand. >> thank you very much. a busy first day of 2013. the fis clal cliff legislation is passed and we may not say those two words again, fis skal cliff but there will be other words we use to describe whatever sit we're pushing up against here. washington will do this again. we've talked about tonight. and we'll be here in washington to cover it for you. on fox news channel. thank you very much for watching our special coverage of this night and over the past two days. bill o'reilly's special is already in progress. and we'll join that next. good night from washington.

>> >> the talking points memo this evening, all of us, all of us need to wise up and fast. you may have heard the story of new york city police officer lawrence deprimo, who spent $100 of his own money to give a barefoot homeless man some boots. that man, jeffrey hillman, was lying in the street when officer spotted him. >> it was extremely cold that night and you see this gentleman, i tried to offer him to buy him a pair of socks and he said, no, sir, god bless you. thank you for asking. when i see something like that, here it is, it's freezing cold out and he had the heart to say god bless me and i had to help him. >> obviously, officer deprimo is a patriot.

and mr. hillman is not homeless, he has an apartment paid for by you and me, he has enough to live in a dignified manner. he doesn't prefer that, he prefers the street and the boots that the officer gave him have disappeared. now i'm not judging hillman, most cases like his involve substance abuse or mental illness, however, we must be honest, the government cannot provide a decent life for hillman. no matter how much money it spends. we're already giving the die tens of thousands of dollars a year and it's doing nothing. there are millions of americans like jeffrey hillman and we all need to understand that some people simply will not, will not save themselves. this translates to an issue that affects all of us. right now an estimated 66 million americans are receiving food stamps and/or medicaid. in addition, there are 21 million folks working for the government.

that means that 87 million people in america are being subsidized by we, the taxpayers. but there are only 109 million americans working in the private sector. doing the math, it's impossible for 109 million workers to support 87 million people. it can't be done. no matter how much you tax the workers. yet, the obama administration and the democratic party continue to put forth that higher taxation will bring the massive government debt under control. perhaps the only democrat telling the truth about this is our old pal, howard dean, the uber liberal former governor of vermont. >> the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. that's a good start, but we're not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board. >> bill: now, governor dean sympathizes with the socialist philosophy and that's where the country is heading.

taking from those who are productive and giving to those who are struggling. or who are working for the massive government apparatus. during this christmas season, i think we all should emulate officer deprimo, we should try to help those in need, but that help may be futile, if the government doesn't wise up and stop the incredible entitlement spending, america's economy will eventually collapse. president obama needs to invite jeffrey hillman to the white house. he needs to talk to the man with no shoes. he needs to see what is actually happening in this country. got to get real about government spending. now, the top story tonight, this is incredible, the pennsylvania department of public welfare says that a single mother with two children is better off taking a job that pays $29,000 a year

than a job that pays $69,000 a year. why? cost of entitlements. joining us now from our new york studio, fox business anchor lou dobbs. so, lou, explain this, please. >> well, bill, first, i think we need to give great credit to the department of public welfare in pennsylvania. they're being honest and straight forward and i wish the federal government, as you do, would listen. think about the benefits received by this woman. $25,000 in a take home salary of $57,000, you add to that all of the expenses that we go through, whether it's child care, whether it is transportation. in the instance, one parent and two children in pennsylvania, food stamps amounts to a subsidy of $6300 a year to that family of three. medicare and child health insurance, $16,500 a year.

section 8 subsidized low income rent. another 4300. earned income tax credits, modestly, $5,000. they could rise significantly beyond that. but, at any rate, they would total so much money combined with what is the national school lunch program, the needy family assistance programs, we're talking about more take home pay, disposable income, for that woman with her two children on public assistance than a woman with two children earning $57,000 a year. it's extraordinary. >> bill: all right. and if she were 69 she wouldn't get any of that. >> right. >> bill: so the pennsylvania authorities say the system is set up now to reward people who aren't making any money and if you try to bring yourself up and raise yourself up in salary, you're actually going to have a lower standard

of living because you lose some of the benefits. that's the game right now. >> it's the game and it's also the challenge because they're trying to avoid that collision. because, it doesn't matter, in this one instance, what we're talking about here, if you're a socialist or if you're a capital list, we're talking about government subsidizing and incentivizing behavior. >> did i pick on this jeffrey hillman guy, the homeless guy? this guy, he has his apartment paid for, medicaid, food stamps, he got it all. there he is in the street. am i being unfair to him? >> i don't think so at all. bill, i think what you're pointing out, it's extraordinary our president who spent much of his life as a community organizer is more interested in expanding government than it is in organizing and supporting communities which are really the answer to mr. hillman's tragedy. >> bill: solving these kind of problems. >> absolutely. >> bill: how thehehehehehehe

>> liberals and conservatives ganging up on mitt romney. that's the subject of this evening's talking points memo. one of the bad things about america is that some of us feel that we can kick people when they're down. that's exactly what's happening to mitt romney right now. billions of americans are very

disappointed that the governor did not wage a more aggressive campaign to unseat president obama. and instead he played safe and libya the third debate and sitting on it the last eight days of the campaign. after hurricane sandy hit the governor disappeared from the news cycle, apparently that was fine with him, he had many opportunities to speak with urgency in the the last weekend, but passed. so president obama's team run by the brilliant david axlerod won the fourth quarter big. they could point at voters who might support them and get them out on election day. the romney campaign made local appearances, saying the same thing over and over and over. early on election night when trends began to appear i said this, the changing country, the demographics are changing it's not a traditional america anymore and there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. they want things.

and who is going to give them things? president obama. he knows it, and he ran on it. >> bill: now, that's the truth. and there's no denying the statistics in exit polling. however some liberal americans were outraged that i would actually say the truth and i'll tell yu ou why in a moment. and eight days after, mitt romney held a conference with his donors and say pretty much what i said. >> and what president obama did was focus on members in his base coalition and give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote. >> bill: again, that's the truth. and here is the backup. 20% of those who voted on election day make under $30,000 a year. those folks are either poor or close to it. many of those voters receive entitlements, food stamps, housing subsidies, that kind of thing and of course, they don't want the programs cut or

reorganized. among americans making less than 30,000 bucks a year, 63%, 63% voted for barack obama. just 35% voted for mitt romney. from that group, the president received about 7 million more votes than romney did. mr. obama won the popular vote by 3 1/2 million. so, is a stone-cold fact that lower income americans largely reelected president obama. mitt romney's failure is very clear. he could not convince the majority of voters that he would look out for them period. he did not show enough outrage every his 16 trillion dollar debt or explain what that could lead to. a total economic collapse. romney was timid, wasn't paul revere spreading the word about danger. ask yourself this question:

what do you think those makes less than $30,000 a year were voting for? what were they voting for? do you think they were voting for massive debt? why they voting for continued chaos in the middle east? were they voting for more government regulations that inhibit businesses from hiring working people? were they voting for 8% unemployment to keep salaries down because there are more workers than jobs? were they voting for any of that? no. millions of lower income americans voted for the candidate who they thought was going to directly help them financially. not every obama voter did that, but many absolutely did. now, going forward, the republican party does have to change. it can't disparage poor people, it has to engage them. that's to demonstrate that a healthy economy, based on discipline and robust capitalism, will lift far more people out of poverty than government handouts will.

you've got to sell that. romney didn't. finally, governor romney also did not confront the far left fanatics to demonize them and let me give you a perfect example. "the washington post" editorialized last week, that i, your humble correspondent, served up a bigoted commentary on election night, quote, a couple of hours before president obama was declared the vick toy bill o'reilly offered his explanation why mitt romney was about to lose because it's a changing country it's not a traditional america anymore. in case anyone might be confused about the meaning of traditional, he elaborated, white establishment is now minority. in other words, the problem was too many voters of color. how vile. how vile. in other words, you pinheads have no right to lie about me by putting fabricated words in my mouth. that's not what i said.

you disgrace the journalism industry. you seek to demonize anyone who disagrees with your far left view. am i being clear enough? the white establishment no longer dominates the political field in america. that is crystal clear. i don't lament that. i'm not pining for a return to calvin coolidge, i just reported it, but for crazed ideologues, that's inconsequence. they summed up saying, quote, it's encouraging that many republicans are repudiating and contemptuous, contemptible o'reilly-mitt romney world view. here is what's really contemptible, you guys spinning an honest look at the vote as a diatribe against poor people and minorities. that's what is contemptible. "the washington post" staff could not care less about the truth, that american society is dependent on a giant

federal map which cannot possibly afford all the stuff it's giving out. that's the truth. we are turning into a western europe and that's exactly what "the washington post" wants. their world view is destructive to america and it will be confronted here. that's memo. >> another rundown, mary

>> liberal and conservative america attacking mitt romney and me over entitlements. joining us from washington, mary katherine ham and juan williams, both fox news analysts. juan, you used to work for "the washington post"? what about that piece, the o'reilly-romney view of the world and sounds like i ran and he's vp on the ticket. >> when they start with the name calling, i've got no use for it, bill. i had to deal with it as a black person on school

vouchers, as well as comments about airport. that's not the what i said, that's not what i'm thinking and that's just crazy. and i think that romney and ryan, romney spoke about the president's base as if he was rewarded elements of the base. ryan spoke about an urban population, that's getting closer and it's worrisome, but the real issue i have and the one i want to discuss with you is what you said in the talking points memo because i don't think people necessarily voted in terms of their economic interests. i think there are lots of poor people, i think there are lots of seniors who receive medicare and social security who voted for mitt romney. i think there are lots of people in the suburbs of new york, connecticut and new jersey who are in some of the these big companies that have to pay higher taxes under president obama who nonetheless believe that obama was a better candidate and voted for the best of america. >> bill: look, juan, you've got to be-- the stats are overwhelming, you can't tell me that economics were the primary

voting force for president obama, you can't say it, it's not true. >> first of all, let me say i agree he with juan unfair of the post and many in the media pointing out some of the statistics about the election and actually pointing out that indeed, minorities increased in turnout and in urban areas, yes, in cities where the g.o.p. has problems relating to folks and bringing folks into their fold and voting for them. those are not racist statements and we need to get away from that if we're going to analyze like we want to. but i will say that i think, you know, you said yourself that some 30-something percent of under 30,000 a year voted for romney. so i don't think -- and i don't think those that voted for obama are necessarily completely ruled by whatever, whatever-- >> and if you're going to say that, wait, wait, mary katherine. if you're going to say that, that's going to be your point of view. you have to fill in the blanks. what did they vote for? i just listed eight things, did they vote for 8%

unemployment. 16,000 -- what did they vote for? >> they didn't believe that romney was on their side and had their back. that's a failure of our own and romney's campaign. >> bill: now we're getting someplace. do you know, juan. i think when you go back to 47%, i think people feel he was looking out for the top 2% and big corporations, what's mary katherine said, he wasn't for them. >> bill: we all three agree, all three of us agree under 37 drew didn't think-- and what did they vote for in reelecting president obama? >> i think they voted for a country where they feel as seniors, as veterans, as people who may be disabled that the country moving forward, especially in terms of this fiscal cliff and economic decisions about budget priorities would be-- >> like high school, there's got to be more than understanding and-- >> they don't think. >> bill: move forward where? >>